Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve -- McKinsey's Biblical Errancy Forum Group

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:16:07 02/27/02 Wed
Author: Rev Gadfly
Subject: Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve
In reply to: Josh Misener 's message, "Re: The nature of original sin, Adam and Eve" on 12:36:01 02/26/02 Tue

J.M.

"First I would like to say that My intentions are not to attack your beliefs, but simply to have intelligent debate, and maybe have some of my own questions answered."

RevG

I always enjoy intelligent debate; and since my 'beliefs' are for the most part not public knowledge, it would be very difficult for anyone to attack them. But for the sake of being clear, I am a Deist, not an Atheist. As a Deist, I follow the call of Thomas Paine made long ago:

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." -- Thomas Paine

J.M.
"One thing that I see you repeating is the existence of certain things like original sin, eternal life, and even God. And that these things have no place in reality because of lack of evidence."

RevG

I reject the first two as unfounded priestly assertions; but have no problem with the idea of an impersonal, detached, god-concept. IMHO, we just don't know enough about reality to dismiss an impersonal god; a personal god can be dismissed because his supposed 'revelations' just don't add up.

I will reserve comment on the quoted material. Please quote it correctly and in full.

J.M.
"Thanks to Descartes first meditation we can hardly even
prove our own existence in this so-called "reality". So anything you believe from that point on takes some extent of faith, the very thing being ridiculed much throughout these pamphlets and discussions."

RevG
There is a very great difference between my existence in reality and the existence of a personal god; the former can experience reality to some degree and be experienced by others; the latter is not experienced in any way or form, he is based on the idea that some Jewish and Greek myths have a basis in reality. For example, if the Bible was only found tomorrow in the sands of Egypt, no one would take the stories within as 'real'.

J.M.
"The point at which we branch is that you choose to place your faith in human rationlality, and I choose to
place my faith in something that I believe to be greater. Not that I don't believe, in some small extent, in human rationality, but I do believe it to be flawed, being subject to evironmental cause and effect."

RevG

Here is the key. Choice. Did you CHOOSE, or was the choice to be a Christian made by your parents, family, community? As such, you are merely the product of an indoctrination process. I was once a victim of the same process, but fortunately, woke up. I will leave you for now with a quote by Voltaire:

"We hold the Jews in horror, and we insist that all which has been written by them, and collected by us, bears the stamp of Divinity. There never was so palpable a contradiction."

peace

Rev Gadfly

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]